Author Topic: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U  (Read 5811 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline yasheng

  • Heavy QuantumATK user
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
  • Country: us
  • Reputation: 0
    • View Profile
Hi All,

I want to calculate the bandgap of Cu2O using DFT+U in ATK. I used the script generator. The calculation uses spin polarized PBE with U=7 eV and FHI basis sets. However, I calculated a direct bandgap of 0.62 eV, which is not consistent with the experimental indirect bandgap of 1.4 eV.

I attached my script (results are too big to be attached). I really appreciate if you look at my input files and give me suggestions on how to get a correct bandgap. (Except the suggetions of going to hybrid functionals).

Thank you,
Yasheng

Offline Jess Wellendorff

  • QuantumATK Staff
  • Supreme QuantumATK Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 933
  • Country: dk
  • Reputation: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #1 on: May 6, 2016, 09:21 »
I do not know your experimental reference, but to me it looks like Cu2O is supposed to have a direct gap at the Gamma point, just like your calculation suggests: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.00499.pdf

Offline yasheng

  • Heavy QuantumATK user
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
  • Country: us
  • Reputation: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #2 on: May 6, 2016, 10:05 »
I was referring to the article here: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2006/CP/b611969g#!divAbstract   It is written in the abstract.

Offline yasheng

  • Heavy QuantumATK user
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
  • Country: us
  • Reputation: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #3 on: May 6, 2016, 10:17 »
Sorry, here in this article (http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/131/12/10.1063/1.3231869)  state that 'Cuprous oxide (Cu 2 O)
(Cu2O) is an abundant, low cost, nontoxic semiconductor material with a direct band gap of 2.17 eV'  (first sentence of the Introduction).

In any case, 0.62 eV of bandgap I calculated seems bit small.

Offline Umberto Martinez

  • Supreme QuantumATK Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Country: dk
  • Reputation: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #4 on: May 6, 2016, 20:28 »
2.17 eV is the exp. band gap.
0.62 eV is the calculated one which reproduce previous VASP calculations as reported in table 1 of your reference, 0.67 eV.

You can try MGGA as implemented in ATK to get a better description of the band gap if you need it.

Offline yasheng

  • Heavy QuantumATK user
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
  • Country: us
  • Reputation: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #5 on: May 9, 2016, 11:28 »
Yes, in the first reference (http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2006/CP/b611969g#!divAbstract ), it is shown that PBE+U (U=7) gives 1.48 eV band gap.

In the second reference (http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/131/12/10.1063/1.3231869) PBE+U yields 0.67 eV and argued that PBE+U method fails to predict the correct band gap.

I am surprised by the inconsistencies in literature. The lesson learned is that never trust the literature, trust your own calculation.




Offline zh

  • QuantumATK Support
  • Supreme QuantumATK Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Reputation: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2016, 04:08 »
It is well known that the band gap predicted by the DFT+U method is dependent strongly on the U value.  Even the same U value, the use of different basis set (e.g., plane wave and local atomic orbital) may also give a slight difference for the predicted band gap value, because the occupied electron number for the atomic orbital may be affected by the locality of orbital.

Offline yasheng

  • Heavy QuantumATK user
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
  • Country: us
  • Reputation: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2016, 17:47 »
I agree with you. But the difference between bandgaps 0.6 eV and 1.4 eV is not a slight difference.

Offline zh

  • QuantumATK Support
  • Supreme QuantumATK Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Reputation: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2016, 07:27 »
The DFT+U may easily give different electron state for  the orbital that is applied by U.  In the practice of DFT+U calculations, the occupancy of orbital should be initialized. For example, if the U is applied on a d orbital,   the occupation number for  dxy, dz2, dxz, dyz, dx2-y2  should be initialized. In most cases, an average value estimated from the occupation number of d orbital that takes. But this couldn't guarantee the convergence of calculation to the global solution of electronic configurations.  In a word, in the use of DFT+U  there are many subtle ticks that usually aren't written in the published paper. 

For the discrepancy in the literature, it is difficult to figure out the clear reason without communication with the authors of literature sources.

Offline yasheng

  • Heavy QuantumATK user
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
  • Country: us
  • Reputation: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2016, 12:18 »
Hi Zh,

what you are saying about initializing the occupation numbers make complete sense. I really wish to learn about these subtle tricks. Can you please demonstrate these tricks in a tutorial? (I can see that you are a member of Quantumwise support team).



Umberto Martinez suggested that  MGGA may give better band gap. I have never done calculations using MGGA.
What is the performance of MGGA method in terms of computational speed compared to normal DFT ?

Thanks,

Yasheng




   

Offline zh

  • QuantumATK Support
  • Supreme QuantumATK Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Reputation: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2016, 13:55 »
Please see the manual for the initialization of spin
http://www.quantumwise.com/documents/manuals/latest/ReferenceManual/index.html/chap.atkdft.html#sect2.atkdft.hubbardU

You can tune the setup of spin configuration by the following two parameters:
filling_method = Anisotropic
number_of_spins=

For the performance of meta-GGA exchange, I suggest to refer to the literature.
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/124/22/10.1063/1.2213970
Specially for its citation.

Offline Anders Blom

  • QuantumATK Staff
  • Supreme QuantumATK Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 5394
  • Country: dk
  • Reputation: 89
    • View Profile
    • QuantumATK at Synopsys
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2016, 14:37 »
In general, the overhead for MGGA-TB09 is very small compared to LDA/GGA.

Offline neerajkumar

  • Regular QuantumATK user
  • **
  • Posts: 17
  • Country: in
  • Reputation: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2016, 10:45 »
The value of U can be varied but is there any way to change the value of exchange parameter J?

Offline Anders Blom

  • QuantumATK Staff
  • Supreme QuantumATK Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 5394
  • Country: dk
  • Reputation: 89
    • View Profile
    • QuantumATK at Synopsys
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2016, 13:11 »
Actually the parameter in ATK is U-J, if you compare to other codes, so what you cannot do is modify U and J separately.

Offline neerajkumar

  • Regular QuantumATK user
  • **
  • Posts: 17
  • Country: in
  • Reputation: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong bandgap calculated for Cu2O using DFT+U
« Reply #14 on: July 24, 2016, 07:36 »
Thanks for the clarification.